Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

8: Conclusion

  • Page ID
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    You have just learned that hierarchically constructed IEPs for students with mild disabilities will allow them to ascend through the entire Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 1956) in each of the four major content areas, as well as the daily living skills and employability training curricula. Indeed, there is no reason for their thought processes to be arrested at the lower levels.

    In the course of this book, you have learned how to deconstruct national and CEC standards by first modifying them and then converting them into long-term and then measurable short-term objectives, with increasing specificity. You have seen how to write long-term objectives and then break them into measurable short-term objectives using Bloom et al.’s (1956) cognitive hierarchy in the four major content areas and in the daily living skills and employability training areas. In addition, you can now write a variety of test items that progressively ascend through the cognitive levels, and you are able to construct appropriate rubrics for the assessment of your students’ written and performance-based activities. Then, as a visible record of each of your students’ performances at the different levels of the hierarchy, you can together categorize their respective artifacts into hierarchically organized portfolios.

    Sequential progression through the Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 1956) is the logical pathway for virtually any learner in any curricular area. This is equally true for students with mild disabilities. This model can provide your students with highly valued 21 st -century skills, regardless of which vocational paths they may later select (e.g., Gewertz, 2008). These skills, identified by respected representatives of the business, education, and policymaking communities, are measurable higher-order thinking skills sought after in virtually every field of employment (for more information on these skills, see ). Hence, because of your students’ progression through the cognitive domain, they should be able to make easy and successful transitions into their respective workplaces, were they can implement the higher-order through processes that they acquired via your direction.

    Conclusions References

    Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain . New York: David McKay Company.

    Gewertz, C. (2008, October 13). States press ahead on 21st century skills. Education Week, 28 (8), 21-23.

    This page titled 8: Conclusion is shared under a CC BY-ND license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Edwin P. Christmann, John L. Badgett, & Mark D. Hogue.

    • Was this article helpful?